NationStates Jolt Archive

Scott Peterson was just found guily of murdering both his wife and their unborn baby. If an unborn baby is just a "foetus," how can anyone who kills it be guilty of murder? If, on the other hand, if Soctt Peterson can be found guilty of murdering a foetus, why cannot also a physician who kills one in the process of an abortion? These seem to me to be mutually contradictory.

They are. That's why I don't support the so-called "Laci Peterson" law.

Indeed. Sets a bad precedent.

But at least some good will come out of it; the bastard will most likely fry like an egg.

...

after spending 26 years on Death row. :(

They are, unless the fetus was viable (which I don't think it was in this case).

Truth be told, the "Laci Peterson law" is just a way for the anti-choice crowd to try and take over the law.

Indeed. Sets a bad precedent.

But at least some good will come out of it; the bastard will most likely fry like an egg.

...

after spending 26 years on Death row. :(
True - I just hope that whole thing with the idiot juror doesn't mess it all up. Although, I personally am against the death penalty.

Silly laws. Just silly.

I'm against Life Without Parole.

If jury feels a crime is not so horrific, or the convicted has a chance of rehabilitating and paying his debt to society, so be it. Whether it be 20 years before his first parole hearing, or whatever.

But if a crime is so heinous that there is no chance for parole, then I say kill the bastard. Not just because of his crime, but out of decency. Life Without Parole is nothing but a very harsh death sentence. It's cruel.

Scott Peterson was just found guily of murdering both his wife and their unborn baby. If an unborn baby is just a "foetus," how can anyone who kills it be guilty of murder? If, on the other hand, if Soctt Peterson can be found guilty of murdering a foetus, why cannot also a physician who kills one in the process of an abortion? These seem to me to be mutually contradictory.

Connor was still alive and since he can be killed, and therefor killed in a criminal way makes it still murder. And since a unborn baby is still live and can be killed, it can be murdered. THis is a awesome victory for the Pro-Life Factions.

A fetus is an unborn baby. It is a human being with a soul. Bottom line. I am thankful that this jury sees that too, and hopefully this will set a precedent that will ultimately end the killing of babies. I don't understand how anyone with a conscience can see otherwise. I believe a woman has a choice, I just can't see how someone can make that choice and still be okay with that. It's barbaric.

I'm against Life Without Parole.

If jury feels a crime is not so horrific, or the convicted has a chance of rehabilitating and paying his debt to society, so be it. Whether it be 20 years before his first parole hearing, or whatever.

But if a crime is so heinous that there is no chance for parole, then I say kill the bastard. Not just because of his crime, but out of decency. Life Without Parole is nothing but a very harsh death sentence. It's cruel.

I would rather spend my whole life in prison than be put to death.

I think most people on death row would too. Also, what about the cases you hear of every so often of people being on death row, or being in prison x many years, who are finally freed because of DNA evidence? What if they never were able to get that test? I wouldn't want to see an innocent person put to death. And another big reason I'm against capital punishment is basically "two wrongs don't make a right." Killing someone because THEY killed someone isn't justice, it's revenge.

Because in this country, it is a woman's right to choose, not a man's. It is perfectly legal for a woman to optionally pay a doctor for an abortion. But if she chooses to keep the pregnancy, and it is terminated against her will, then it is not legal because that would have been a life that was wanted (? - that's my theory, anyway).
(I'm not saying I think it's ok that men have no choice, or that it's not contradictory at all)

Plus, then you get back to the question of "when does life begin?", and if the states can make their own laws regarding that, and how late into the pregnancy was that person (past the point where even abortion is illegal?).

A fetus is an unborn baby. It is a human being with a soul. Bottom line. I am thankful that this jury sees that too.
I certainly hope the jury didn't see this too. That is, since they're supposed to make a decision of something proven beyond a reasonable doubt and there is a resonable doubt about whether or not ANYONE has a soul. Was there soul related evidence presented at trial?

I would rather spend my whole life in prison than be put to death.

I think most people on death row would too. Also, what about the cases you hear of every so often of people being on death row, or being in prison x many years, who are finally freed because of DNA evidence? What if they never were able to get that test? I wouldn't want to see an innocent person put to death. And another big reason I'm against capital punishment is basically "two wrongs don't make a right." Killing someone because THEY killed someone isn't justice, it's revenge.

I'm sure they would. However, when a person commits murder, they forfeit the right to decide that. They don't get to choose to live. The person they killed didn't have a choice. I don't feel sorry for felons one little bit. You do the crime, you need to face the consequences.

Connor was still alive and since he can be killed, and therefor killed in a criminal way makes it still murder. And since a unborn baby is still live and can be killed, it can be murdered. THis is a awesome victory for the Pro-Life Factions.

See what I mean?

[QUOTE=Marxlan]I certainly hope the jury didn't see this too. [QUOTE]


Looks like they did. They found him guilty of Connor's murder. He's guilty and hopefully he'll die for it.

Listen, the baby was alive. It moved, it developed, it consumed energy, it was made up of cells, and it needed oxygen. According to what I learned in school, only living things do this. Thus meaning that the baby was alive.

Was it conscious? How would i know! All im saying is that it was alive. And killing someone is bad, killing TWO living things at once is really bad, and killing a pregnant woman is REALLY REALLY BAD.

That's why i want Scotty to FRY! :D

Listen, the baby was alive. It moved, it developed, it consumed energy, it was made up of cells, and it needed oxygen. According to what I learned in school, only living things do this. Thus meaning that the baby was alive.

Was it conscious? How would i know! All im saying is that it was alive. And killing someone is bad, killing TWO living things at once is really bad, and killing a pregnant woman is REALLY REALLY BAD.

That's why i want Scotty to FRY! :D

How far along was it? Because if it wasn't far enough along, it didn't meet all of the requirements to be a life.

I'm sure they would. However, when a person commits murder, they forfeit the right to decide that. They don't get to choose to live. The person they killed didn't have a choice. I don't feel sorry for felons one little bit. You do the crime, you need to face the consequences.
Yes, I agree that a person forfeits his or her rights when they commit murder, but the point I was responding to was that LG said he thought sticking someone in prison their entire life was needlessly inhumane. I disagreed.

Looks like they did. They found him guilty of Connor's murder. He's guilty and hopefully he'll die for it.
I'm going to explain this simply for you: The jury decided that the baby was ALIVE. They didn't decide that it had a soul. There is certainly a reasonable doubt if anything has a soul. Do you follow?
Now, you said you're glad that the jury saw a fetus has a SOUL. Difference between being alive and having a soul: I'll leave that up to you to conclude.

Listen, the baby was alive. It moved, it developed, it consumed energy, it was made up of cells, and it needed oxygen. According to what I learned in school, only living things do this. Thus meaning that the baby was alive.

Was it conscious? How would i know! All im saying is that it was alive. And killing someone is bad, killing TWO living things at once is really bad, and killing a pregnant woman is REALLY REALLY BAD.

That's why i want Scotty to FRY! :D
Yes, IT was alive, but IT may or may not have been a PERSON yet. I'm not sure how far along the pregnancy was, but I personally don't believe a fetus can be considered human until the point where brain waves are detectable. I don't know if this fetus was that far along yet or not.

The 10 minute rule:

If, in its unmodified, undamaged, form an organism can survive on its own for more then 10 minutes, I consider it alive enough to constitute murder by killing it. Crippling injuries and disabilities are considered damages or modifications. Old people are considered damaged from age, so they are exempt from this restriction. Fetuses cannot be seperated from their mother for 10 minutes, lacking their own means to support themselves; they are part of her body and if they aren't they are dead. If you consider fetuses to be their own seperate entities, you agree that they can live outside of the mother, just like a baby can. This rule of thumb allows for abortions only up until when the fetus can survive outside of the mother(I guess around 3rd trimester..?)

Cruel, yes. True, yes.

Was it conscious? How would i know! All im saying is that it was alive. And killing someone is bad
Conciousness seems pretty relevant doesn't it? If killing anything alive is bad, than why isn't it a crime to kill cattle? They're alive. Something has to set a person apart from something that's simply "alive", and if that's not conciousness what is it? A soul? You can't prove a soul either, and it's religious, not legal.
Also, you're saying "it" with reference to the fetus, and then you call "it" "someone": isn't that a problem? If it's an "it", it's not a "someone".

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362266&page=1&pp=15

Actaully it's very simple.

The abortion doctor didn't jump the woman and force an abortion.

This animal attacked her.

I thought murdering a pregnant woman got you a double murder charge. This is not new.

Lawyer types please correct me if needed.....

AHHHHH...

First the nations swings to the right and sends Kerry and his liberal friends home with the bad message.

Then Scott peterson is finally convicted of the cime that everyone except his mother knew he was guilty of. 2 murders, both mother and child.

It's a good day to be an American.

This verdict actually has nothing to do with abortion or anti-abortion laws. The main issue here is that he murdered his pregnant wife. Had his wife not been murdered, she would have carried this baby (Connor) to full term. So the prosecuters here charged him with 2nd degreemurder because Connor was a baby that Laci intended on keeping. Therefore, this laws stay within a Pro-choice mindset (Doesn't that mean the mothers choice to keep or abort a fetus?). Tying this verdict (and many others like it) to abortion laws is completely assinine and irrevelant.
That's all.

Hope he gets the death penalty. It saves the state money to keep him locked up and then mabey the family will be provided some comfort that the man who took there daughter and grandchild wont still breath on this earth

Plus, then you get back to the question of "when does life begin?", and if the states can make their own laws regarding that, and how late into the pregnancy was that person (past the point where even abortion is illegal?).

That is a subject that will eventually be argued in front of the Supreme Court of The United States. Hopefully the court will rule on this in a scientific manner and not rule on it on an emotional level. There are too many fanatics on both sides of this issue. Frankly IMHO life does not begin at fertilization as some religeous fanatics might believe. On the other hand those who would request and perform a partial birth abortion on a viable late term unborn baby... :(

Yes, IT was alive, but IT may or may not have been a PERSON yet. I'm not sure how far along the pregnancy was, but I personally don't believe a fetus can be considered human until the point where brain waves are detectable. I don't know if this fetus was that far along yet or not.

I've heard this argument before. As far as I'm concerned, it's a prize rationalization for doing what you want to do regardless of the consequences or the morality of doing so.

When my youngest daughter was still en utero, my ex and I had just gone to bed. She was laying on her side against my back. Just as I was going to sleep, the baby kicked me in the butt! It was then that it finally dawned on me that this was a little person for whom I was partially responsible. I think it was at that point that I finally began to grow up and accept responsibility for not only my own life, but for the lives of those around me.

As I have indicated previously on this board, although I know of no other way to protect the mother's right to decide, abortion is personally repugnant to me.

And, yet, I keep hearing "Life begins at 40" ...

You people need to make up your minds.

And, yet, I keep hearing "Life begins at 40" ...

You people need to make up your minds.

Oh, that's very funny, that is. Ha! Ha! Ha!

Oh, that's very funny, that is. Ha! Ha! Ha!

:D

:D

Consider yourself to have been gestured at obscenely! LOL!

The 10 minute rule:

If, in its unmodified, undamaged, form an organism can survive on its own for more then 10 minutes, I consider it alive enough to constitute murder by killing it. Crippling injuries and disabilities are considered damages or modifications. Old people are considered damaged from age, so they are exempt from this restriction. Fetuses cannot be seperated from their mother for 10 minutes, lacking their own means to support themselves; they are part of her body and if they aren't they are dead. If you consider fetuses to be their own seperate entities, you agree that they can live outside of the mother, just like a baby can. This rule of thumb allows for abortions only up until when the fetus can survive outside of the mother(I guess around 3rd trimester..?)

Cruel, yes. True, yes.


I absolutely agree - IMO, if the child could live unassisted outside the womb then it is too late for abortions and it is a person - thus a charge of murder could in some circumstancesapply. If it can't then it is not a "person" it is a foetus. 6 months is about the youngest I have heard of one surviving at all and it had serious disabilities. We think little to nothing (legally) about "pulling the plug" if someone is on life support with no chance of recovery. What is a womb but a life support system?

These people that are arguing for the death penalty because killing something human is inherently bad are seriously contradicting themselves.

Myself, I think that the death penalty should apply to serial paedophiles.

Consider yourself to have been gestured at obscenely! LOL!


*tee hee*

Anyway, as to the subject at hand and an attempt to be a little more serious ...

I find the whole thing laughable. Let's give him 50 trillion consecutive life sentences for every cell in her body he killed.

And, on a final note, concerning the mind and the soul and the unborn fetus:

If mind were brain and brain were mind, the bear would be poking my behind.

Truth be told, the "Laci Peterson law" is just a way for the anti-choice crowd to try and take over the law.

Yes, and I know that here in America, we frown upon anybody having their say in politics.

By the way, the preferred term is "pro-life". I know, it implies that "pro-choice" people are "anti-life", just as "pro-choice" implies that "pro-life" people are "anti-choice".

We really need more neutral names for the two movements.

I'm sure they would. However, when a person commits murder, they forfeit the right to decide that. They don't get to choose to live. The person they killed didn't have a choice. I don't feel sorry for felons one little bit. You do the crime, you need to face the consequences.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me what adjective describes "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.

Connor was still alive and since he can be killed, and therefor killed in a criminal way makes it still murder. And since a unborn baby is still live and can be killed, it can be murdered. THis is a awesome victory for the Pro-Life Factions.


Yes, I comepletely agree. Just because Conner wasnt completly mature, doesnt make him any less of a human being. I mean, a 5 month old baby is not fully matured at all, and if some one killed the baby, would that count as murder? Accourding to you guys, no.

Conner was alive. Mr. Peterson killed him. Done is Done.

Here we go on the abortion thing again...like a bunch of dogs chasing our tails. :headbang:

For the record. Peterson was correctly charged and correctly convicted.

The 10 minute rule:

If, in its unmodified, undamaged, form an organism can survive on its own for more then 10 minutes, I consider it alive enough to constitute murder by killing it. Crippling injuries and disabilities are considered damages or modifications. Old people are considered damaged from age, so they are exempt from this restriction. Fetuses cannot be seperated from their mother for 10 minutes, lacking their own means to support themselves; they are part of her body and if they aren't they are dead. If you consider fetuses to be their own seperate entities, you agree that they can live outside of the mother, just like a baby can. This rule of thumb allows for abortions only up until when the fetus can survive outside of the mother(I guess around 3rd trimester..?)

Cruel, yes. True, yes.

How can that be true? It is, as you said, a rule of thumb*, a guideline. Guidelines are not truth. They are substitutes for it. This particular rule of thumb is backed by no evidence. As an unsupported argument, (if it can stay alive independently for 10 minutes it is life), it is just as valid as the rule of thumb "if it can stay alive independenly for 5 years, it is life."

Also, are you suggesting that many viruses and parasites are not life?

Also, your definition of "independent" is very loose. We rely on other organsims to survive. Without plants, for example, we all die, because there would be no way to obtain more energy to live, not to mention the fact that oxygen would stop being cycled.

*which, by the way, is a phrase that comes from the days when you were allowed to beat your wife, as long as the object you used was no thicker than your thumb.

By the way, the preferred term is "pro-life". I know, it implies that "pro-choice" people are "anti-life", just as "pro-choice" implies that "pro-life" people are "anti-choice".

We really need more neutral names for the two movements.
I don't see how the term "Pro-choice" isn't neutral. The "Pro-life" movements says a woman shouldn't have that particular choice. There's nothing necessarily negative with opposing a right to choice. We aren't supposed to have a choice in whether or not we steal or rape, right? Choice isn't good or bad by definition.
Of course, we could consider "Pro-life" to mean one is in favour of extending the definition of life to the unborn. Therefore "Anti-life" would only mean being against that definition. Of course, that's probably not how most people look at it.

I think that people who want to prevent abortions should offer to adopt the children that would otherwise be aborted.

For the record. Peterson was correctly charged and correctly convicted.

Exactly.

How can that be true? It is, as you said, a rule of thumb*, a guideline. .....
....
....
*which, by the way, is a phrase that comes from the days when you were allowed to beat your wife, as long as the object you used was no thicker than your thumb.
Which is absolutely ridiculous. Now is it thickness of width? I can never remember. It would certainly be best if an object were wider, because then the force of the blow would be more spread out, hence less hurtful, which is, after all, the point of the rule, right? But come on, the thumb? Now you're being silly. Wouldn't a rule of wrist be just as good? I'm looking at my wrist right now... seems about right.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. Now is it thickness of width? I can never remember. It would certainly be best if an object were wider, because then the force of the blow would be more spread out, hence less hurtful, which is, after all, the point of the rule, right? But come on, the thumb? Now you're being silly. Wouldn't a rule of wrist be just as good? I'm looking at my wrist right now... seems about right.

I didn't make any statement regarding what I thought of the origional "rule of thumb". I just threw that fact out there, to educate the readers of these forums.

I didn't make any statement regarding what I thought of the origional "rule of thumb". I just threw that fact out there, to educate the readers of these forums.
And I was just making an observation. The rule of wrist may have been a better idea.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. Now is it thickness of width? I can never remember. It would certainly be best if an object were wider, because then the force of the blow would be more spread out, hence less hurtful, which is, after all, the point of the rule, right? But come on, the thumb? Now you're being silly. Wouldn't a rule of wrist be just as good? I'm looking at my wrist right now... seems about right.

Am I confused or are you actually talking about beating a woman?

Am I confused or are you actually talking about beating a woman?

Well, he's certainly not talking about the weather...

This IS a free and open discussion forum. Not to say that he won't be banned.

Am I confused or are you actually talking about beating a woman?
Can't it be both? :rolleyes:

Well, he's certainly not talking about the weather...

This IS a free and open discussion forum. Not to say that he won't be banned.

My post WAS quite literal and I was asking if that was what they were talking about. Nowhere did I question the morality of it.

My post WAS quite literal and I was asking if that was what they were talking about. Nowhere did I question the morality of it.
You may very well be confused. I made a minor observation... and it was a joke. Sarcasm anyone? A sense of humour. Seriously, if I were beating my wife I'd prefer a wrist-thick instrument. Maybe THAT's why I have trouble with women... (not that I'm violent, but that I can't beat them with something as thick as my wrist.)

Yes, I comepletely agree. Just because Conner wasnt completly mature, doesnt make him any less of a human being. I mean, a 5 month old baby is not fully matured at all, and if some one killed the baby, would that count as murder? Accourding to you guys, no.

Conner was alive. Mr. Peterson killed him. Done is Done.


By matured in this context I (and I assume others who have made similar statements) am referring to a foetus, not a child. Obviously we regard a birthed, independent child as a person and for you to suggest that we would consider your example of a five month old baby to be the same as an immature foetus is insulting to our intelligence and to yours.

Surely you are capable of a more relevant comparison?

Scott Peterson was just found guily of murdering both his wife and their unborn baby. If an unborn baby is just a "foetus," how can anyone who kills it be guilty of murder? If, on the other hand, if Soctt Peterson can be found guilty of murdering a foetus, why cannot also a physician who kills one in the process of an abortion? These seem to me to be mutually contradictory.
first of all, i completely disagree with the Peterson ruling because i don't believe a fetus should be given legal status equivalent to a human murder victim. HOWEVER, one could make the case that inducing an abortion in an unwilling woman, or ending the life of a fetus she is carrying without her consent, qualifies as a crime while ending the life of that fetus at her request is not a crime. it's like how taking somebody's kidney is a crime if they don't consent, but taking it out if they choose to be an organ donor is not a crime.

The phrase "rule of thumb" has no such origin. It comes from the days when woodworkers would measure things by their thumbs.

Scott Peterson was just found guily of murdering both his wife and their unborn baby. If an unborn baby is just a "foetus," how can anyone who kills it be guilty of murder? If, on the other hand, if Soctt Peterson can be found guilty of murdering a foetus, why cannot also a physician who kills one in the process of an abortion? These seem to me to be mutually contradictory.

A physician who performs abortions does it in the 1st trimester. Conner was past the first trimester. People still argue at what point a fetus is considered to be a living person and I am not sure when that is suppose to be, but it must be after the 1st trimester by law or abortions would be illegal everywhere.

The 10 minute rule:

If, in its unmodified, undamaged, form an organism can survive on its own for more then 10 minutes, I consider it alive enough to constitute murder by killing it. Crippling injuries and disabilities are considered damages or modifications. Old people are considered damaged from age, so they are exempt from this restriction. Fetuses cannot be seperated from their mother for 10 minutes, lacking their own means to support themselves; they are part of her body and if they aren't they are dead. If you consider fetuses to be their own seperate entities, you agree that they can live outside of the mother, just like a baby can. This rule of thumb allows for abortions only up until when the fetus can survive outside of the mother(I guess around 3rd trimester..?)

Cruel, yes. True, yes.

Here's a better question.
Can a heart beat without oxygen?
Can A heart beat but no blood flow thru it?
How long can a heart beat without oxygen or blood flowing thru it?
Does a heart beat mean the person is alive?

Does anyone wanna answer?

Well a heart can beat for more then 10 minutes with neither blood or oxygen flow!!!!!

The actus reus for murder in British law:
"Unlawfully killing a human being while under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought".
Under British law, a foetus is not classified as a human being and so cannot be murdered, even if it dies through injuries caused by the defendant. However once born, the baby is fully defended by the law and if it dies from injuries suffered in the womb, then the defendant faces a charge of at least manslaughter. However it would be difficult in such a case to find mens rea and so therefore difficult to convict the defendant - just because a man stabbed a pregnant woman doesn't mean he wanted or intended to kill the foetus.
Also brain dead (can no longer do basic bodily functions like breathe without the aid of a machine) people are not classified as human beings - this is what allows doctors to terminate their lives when they see no further point in continuing treatment.

You may very well be confused. I made a minor observation... and it was a joke. Sarcasm anyone? A sense of humour. Seriously, if I were beating my wife I'd prefer a wrist-thick instrument. Maybe THAT's why I have trouble with women... (not that I'm violent, but that I can't beat them with something as thick as my wrist.)

Marxlan, that statement regarding the literal sense in which I asked was not again about the morality of what was being discussed. I do have a sense of humor. I was asking because I was curious about the urban folklore from where it came. Backwoods thinking and the origins of expressions such as 'rule of thumb' was interesting to here where it had come from. Hope that clears up my first, original posts now that things were blown out of proportion. Heh. If anyone can be sardonic I can. So, its all good.

The phrase "rule of thumb" has no such origin. It comes from the days when woodworkers would measure things by their thumbs.

Thank you.

From what I've seen of this story the lady in question was 8 months pregnant. That's not a foetus, to me, that's a baby. A foetus is something that couldn't survive outside the womb; at 8 months Connor was pretty much fully formed and ready. It's therefore murder, rather than unauthorised abortion IMHO. If Connor had been less viable then maybe there is a case to argue for unauthorised abortion, but even then doesn't unauthorised abortion fall under the aegis of second degree murder anyway under US law?

The actus reus for murder in British law:
"Unlawfully killing a human being while under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought".
Under British law, a foetus is not classified as a human being and so cannot be murdered, even if it dies through injuries caused by the defendant. However once born, the baby is fully defended by the law and if it dies from injuries suffered in the womb, then the defendant faces a charge of at least manslaughter. However it would be difficult in such a case to find mens rea and so therefore difficult to convict the defendant - just because a man stabbed a pregnant woman doesn't mean he wanted or intended to kill the foetus.
Also brain dead (can no longer do basic bodily functions like breathe without the aid of a machine) people are not classified as human beings - this is what allows doctors to terminate their lives when they see no further point in continuing treatment.

God id hate to live there.

Brain Dead people arent human? Gosh, thats harsh. Very very very harsh.

Did you know that my mother was brain-dead(as in no longer do basic bodily functions like breathe without the aid of a machine) temporarily because she was in a car accident in Pakistan? They then flew here to Singapore and then to the U.S. I will now thank god every day for letting her go through Singapore, because if she had gone to Britain the doctors could have said, "Look! Her brains not working! Lets kill her!".

Scott Peterson was just found guily of murdering both his wife and their unborn baby. If an unborn baby is just a "foetus," how can anyone who kills it be guilty of murder? If, on the other hand, if Soctt Peterson can be found guilty of murdering a foetus, why cannot also a physician who kills one in the process of an abortion? These seem to me to be mutually contradictory.

You could 'murder' a foetus by murdering it's mother. A physician isn't killing the foetuses' mother by removing unwanted tissue from her uterus, and therefore isn't 'murdering' the foetus. The physician is, rather, performing a medical service for the mother, who evidently has no wish to allow the tissue inside her uterus to grow any further.

This would be the point when some aggrieved owner/operator of a penis starts yammering about their rights regarding the uteruses they (probably don't) knock up. You know what guys? Yes, it is a double-standard. Women do have the final say about their reproductive organs and what grows inside them, and you don't. And no, maybe it isn't 'fair', but you should just get used to it. If you've got some sort of impregnation fetish, you should let your partner know ahead of time.

future peace: you're a smart one!

God id hate to live there.

Brain Dead people arent human? Gosh, thats harsh. Very very very harsh.

Did you know that my mother was brain-dead(as in no longer do basic bodily functions like breathe without the aid of a machine) temporarily because she was in a car accident in Pakistan? They then flew here to Singapore and then to the U.S. I will now thank god every day for letting her go through Singapore, because if she had gone to Britain the doctors could have said, "Look! Her brains not working! Lets kill her!".
from your description, your mother wasn't brain dead. simply lacking respiratory function doesn't equate to brain death, and doctors in Britain would have the technology to confirm that she wasn't brain dead. please keep in mind that these doctors aren't just going around pulling the plug on patients for fun, they are simply allowing bodies to die after the person has already passed on; they only terminate function in situations where the brain is GONE, where the person is already dead, and where the body is being kept artificially alive by machines.

That is a subject that will eventually be argued in front of the Supreme Court of The United States. Hopefully the court will rule on this in a scientific manner and not rule on it on an emotional level. There are too many fanatics on both sides of this issue. Frankly IMHO life does not begin at fertilization as some religeous fanatics might believe. On the other hand those who would request and perform a partial birth abortion on a viable late term unborn baby... :(

Partial birth abortions cannot be requested. They are NOT elective. They are, in the majority of cases, for when the infant is already dead. This is why, in many photos of partial birth abortions thrown around by anti-abortion people, the fetus is rotting.

In other cases, partial birth abortions occur because the infant would not live long after birth, and would cripple the mother, or cause a risk to her health if she were to give birth.

To people sitting near the fence - Pro-choicers in general do not support abortion. They don't encourage abortion (that would be the pro-abortion folks, not the pro-choice folks). Most pro-choicers are just as disgusted by partial birth abortions.

But partial birth abortions are NOT a matter of choice. They are, in the vast majority of cases, due to serious health risks.

Elective abortions (the CHOICE part here), occur BEFORE the infant meets the biological requirements to be classified a separate organism, and BEFORE it forms any brain (beyond, at the most, a brain stem).

Please, if you are not a fanatical anti-abortioner (because we all know they're impervious to facts), look into the issues of abortion. Preferably not using 'pro-life' sites as references, because they are full of bullshit and mislabled photos. Go to medical sources. Go and ask for information from your local GP, or (gasp) visit a local abortion clinic and ask for some information about what exactly they do.

Oh wait, might not want to do that last one if you're female, since if you do, you might become the target of SO-CALLED 'pro-lifers'... The same people who bomb clinics, killing innocent people, the same people who attack their fellow human beings because they feel they have the moral high-ground.

Yeah, might want to give that a miss. Get a brother or boyfriend to go instead :D

This verdict actually has nothing to do with abortion or anti-abortion laws. The main issue here is that he murdered his pregnant wife. Had his wife not been murdered, she would have carried this baby (Connor) to full term. So the prosecuters here charged him with 2nd degreemurder because Connor was a baby that Laci intended on keeping. Therefore, this laws stay within a Pro-choice mindset (Doesn't that mean the mothers choice to keep or abort a fetus?). Tying this verdict (and many others like it) to abortion laws is completely assinine and irrevelant.
That's all.
This is perhaps the only rational intelligent explanation of the whole thread. Nothing to do with souls, with whether it could survive, arguments about what constitutes human - just simply a legal look at intent. She intended to give birth. Therefore it was murder to a certain degree. It's rather simple really.

Thank you to the poster who pointed out that the 'Rule of Thumb' story was an urban myth. I just did some checking and you're absolutely right. So I've learnt something today which always makes me feel good. FYI, here's a site that explains it in more detail:
http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

Listen, the baby was alive. It moved, it developed, it consumed energy, it was made up of cells, and it needed oxygen. According to what I learned in school, only living things do this. Thus meaning that the baby was alive.

Was it conscious? How would i know! All im saying is that it was alive. And killing someone is bad, killing TWO living things at once is really bad, and killing a pregnant woman is REALLY REALLY BAD.

That's why i want Scotty to FRY! :D
You know a virus does al,ost everything you described except reproduce by itself.
A baby cannot reproduce until after it is born.

So if we are using the same guidelines niether is alive scientifically speaking.

Thus The Peterson Trial was a bad trial. Scott was not guilty of killing a fetus because its not alive to count as killing. I will grant Laci would count.

But in my opinion Scott is as gulty as OJ was innocent. I'll leave that conclusion to you people.

You know a virus does al,ost everything you described except reproduce by itself.
A baby cannot reproduce until after it is born.

So if we are using the same guidelines niether is alive scientifically speaking.

Thus The Peterson Trial was a bad trial. Scott was not guilty of killing a fetus because its not alive to count as killing. I will grant Laci would count.

But in my opinion Scott is as gulty as OJ was innocent. I'll leave that conclusion to you people.

So then your saying that little kids that haven't hit puberty can be killed because their not 'alive'

You know a virus does al,ost everything you described except reproduce by itself.
A baby cannot reproduce until after it is born.

So if we are using the same guidelines niether is alive scientifically speaking.

Thus The Peterson Trial was a bad trial. Scott was not guilty of killing a fetus because its not alive to count as killing. I will grant Laci would count.

But in my opinion Scott is as gulty as OJ was innocent. I'll leave that conclusion to you people.
people, a fetus IS alive. it is living tissue. period. there is no way to deny this, based on science. it is called "The Human LIFE Cycle" for a reason; non-living tissue does not become living tissue magically at some point in the cycle. a sperm is alive, an egg is alive, a zygote is alive, a fetus is alive, a baby is alive. however, at some point along this process you go from having living human tissue to have a living human being, and THAT is the issue for debate. a fetus IS ALIVE. there is no way to deny that unless you ignore biological evidence. however, the killing of human tissue alone is not a crime, while the killing of a human person is...it is a crucial distinction.

That law seriously sucks. An unborn foetus is just a lump of cells in the same way that a cancer is just a lump of cells, but you don't go around arresting doctors who cure cancer!

I suppose that he did it without the mother's permission (obvious I know, she being dead), whereas in an abortion it is the mother who asks to have it destroyed, so that makes a difference as the foetus is part of her body.

Originally posted by <b> BastardSword</b><i> A baby cannot reproduce until after it is born.

Well neither can a child until it is about 12, so they are not alive either?

Scott Peterson was just found guily of murdering both his wife and their unborn baby. If an unborn baby is just a "foetus," how can anyone who kills it be guilty of murder? If, on the other hand, if Soctt Peterson can be found guilty of murdering a foetus, why cannot also a physician who kills one in the process of an abortion? These seem to me to be mutually contradictory.

Further research demonstrates that the fetus was *8 months* along when Laci disappeared. It *is* illegal in every state to perform an abortion at this stage so your supposed contradiction means absolutely nothing. The fetus was viable.

Well neither can a child until it is about 12, so they are not alive either?
Actually I believe some girls can hit puberty at age 8 and therefore be pregnant logically.

CAncer cells are human cells but we are allowed to kill them... so when do cells gain power over a woman?

Yes, IT was alive, but IT may or may not have been a PERSON yet. I'm not sure how far along the pregnancy was, but I personally don't believe a fetus can be considered human until the point where brain waves are detectable. I don't know if this fetus was that far along yet or not.

Connor was at least eight months along and at that point of development was viable. Brain waves can be measured at about 4 to 6 weeks or so.
The medical folks have not defined life, but they have defined death and a legal definition of death is absence of a heartbeat and brain waves.
I do think Connor was human, he had a heartbeat, he had brain waves, and he was viable so I guess that qualifies him as a person.
Several years ago Representative Dr. Tom Coburn (R OK) introduced a bill into the House to define life as the presence of a heartbeat and brain waves. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated. Now that he has been elected to the Senate, maybe he can re-introduce it and get it passed.

With the simple joy of a child.

The 10 minute rule:

This rule of thumb allows for abortions only up until when the fetus can survive outside of the mother(I guess around 3rd trimester..?)

Cruel, yes. True, yes.

So with the 10 minute rule I guess so called "partial birth abortion" should be considered murder. Personally, I consiider all abortion, except where the fetus will not survive or the life of the mother is endangered, to be murder.

So with the 10 minute rule I guess so called "partial birth abortion" should be considered murder. Personally, I consiider all abortion, except where the fetus will not survive or the life of the mother is endangered, to be murder.
But your idea will never get passed because almost all courts allow rape as another exception. You will find few that won't.

God id hate to live there.

Brain Dead people arent human? Gosh, thats harsh. Very very very harsh.

Did you know that my mother was brain-dead(as in no longer do basic bodily functions like breathe without the aid of a machine) temporarily because she was in a car accident in Pakistan? They then flew here to Singapore and then to the U.S. I will now thank god every day for letting her go through Singapore, because if she had gone to Britain the doctors could have said, "Look! Her brains not working! Lets kill her!".

No. Generally the courts will only be satisfied if the person has no chance of ever recovering. The definition of brain dead is the death of the brain stem and from that there is no recovery. Hence your mother would not have been considered 'brain dead' just merely comatoise or PVS (permenant vegative state)

I suppose that he did it without the mother's permission (obvious I know, she being dead), whereas in an abortion it is the mother who asks to have it destroyed, so that makes a difference as the foetus is part of her body.

Why don't we do all this a new way. Allow this "tissue" to develop. Allow it to be born. Allow it grow for 18 years, and then ask it if it wants to be aborted. Why not give the "tissue" a choice. :(

But your idea will never get passed because almost all courts allow rape as another exception. You will find few that won't.

I would give serious consideration to allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest. To allow a pregnancy caused by rape or incest to go full term could have perminant debilitating affects on the mental health of the mother.

Just a thought...None of us knows if Scott Peterson is guilty or not. NONE OF US. Just want to keep that on the table. Cause I'm tired of reading "He's guilty and I hope he fries". Just imagine for an instant that maybe he's innocent. And he's about to be murdered himself after the murder of his pregnant wife, and blamed for it. Just imagine what it must feel like to be him if he's innocent. That would really suck.

Or maybe he is guilty. I don't know. I don't feel like judging him. This whole case makes me sick. I guess it's only a matter of time until the TV movie is made. And then Roe v. Wade is overturned and coathangers brought back. The rate of abortions will probably continue to go up as the morning after pill is ruled illegal as well. Pharmacists who give out fake birth control pills will be protected under "freedom of religion". I'm glad I'm a guy.

No bottom line on the whole “soul” issue.
If your point is founded on a “soul” then you are bring religion into a judicial issues.

Okay, I know this is a bit off-topic, but I have a very simple question:

How many of you people out there who want every woman who gets pregnant to give birth are willing to pay all the costs for the woman to go through pregnancy, birth, aftercare (including any mental health treatment), and adopt the kid, especially if it's got a mental or physical disability? Are you personally willing to do this?

As for on topic: I think that the conviction was correct on the count for Laci, though I think manslaughter would have been more accurate for the foetus.

I guess it's only a matter of time until the TV movie is made.

It's already been made! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385940/) BEFORE the trial was even over!

It's already been made! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385940/) BEFORE the trial was even over!
My faith in humanity is shaken further.