Snap, Crackle, Pop

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 10:59 pm

So, they're giving Scott Peterson the death penalty. In 99% of the cases, I truly am against capital punishment, but for some reason, I'm not so sad to hear this verdict. He'll spend his days at San Quentin, and to be honest, he'll probably be safer there. Just thought I'd share, and am curious to hear other opinions on the matter.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:54 pm

I heard at work, a few of the ladies who were listening to the radio at the same time all went "Yes!" at the same time.

Normally I'm mixed, and while I'm not fond of people (young or old) in general, what he did sickened me. There were other courses he could have taken without anyone dying.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:04 am

Teja, Scott Peterson probably will just die in jail, given California's history of death penalty...many people on death row, yet so few people are executed.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:01 am

What did he do? What were the crimes he was convicted of?

Meow · Post by **Meow** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:10 am

Someone else will probably give you the exact charges, but he was tried for murdering his pregnant wife and dumping the body in the ocean. The bodies washed up several months later.

Nigga JP · Post by **Nigga JP** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:27 am

At risk of sounding incredibly callus, why does everyone care so much about this case? Would anyone have given a shit if this happened if Scott and Laci were black and lived in Detroit? If you want to learn more check this out: http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:28 am

The link gives some background, but basically he was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife, and second-degree murder of his unborn son who she was pregnant with. If I remember correctly, when the bodies were recovered, it was quite gruesome.

(Edited because I evidently type faster than I think, causing me to call his wife a with.

)

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:37 am

Nigga JP wrote:At risk of sounding incredibly callus, why does everyone care so much about this case? Would anyone have given a shit if this happened if Scott and Laci were black and lived in Detroit? If you want to learn more check this out: http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/

I would, I don't care if they were black, white, or purple with pink polka dots. Anyone who does that to their wife and unborn child deserve to fry.

Nigga JP · Post by **Nigga JP** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:44 am

Reika wrote: I would, I don't care if they were black, white, or purple with pink polka dots. Anyone who does that to their wife and unborn child deserve to fry.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but I certainly think that he should live out a miserable life for what he did. It was a horrible crime. I'm just wondering why this case got so much media attention. Apparently 3,000 people went to some sort of service for her. Maybe I am incorrect in thinking that crimes that are this horrible happen on a fairly frequent basis.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:48 am

FlameBlade wrote:Teja, Scott Peterson probably will just die in jail, given California's history of death penalty...many people on death row, yet so few people are executed.

Oh yeah. Well, he'll probably get in about 20 years before they can him. I don't know if he'd last that long in the regular population, what with being such a pretty boy and a celebrated figure. One of those things that will stay a mystery.

Nigga JP wrote:At risk of sounding incredibly callus, why does everyone care so much about this case?

It's just because the case been so celebrated. I'm a news watcher, so this case has plagued my home for several months, as it has so many other people's. Plus, CA is one of the states with the DP, so that ups the ante moreso than it would in D-town.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:13 am

Nigga JP wrote:I don't believe in the death penalty, but I certainly think that he should live out a miserable life for what he did. It was a horrible crime. I'm just wondering why this case got so much media attention. Apparently 3,000 people went to some sort of service for her. Maybe I am incorrect in thinking that crimes that are this horrible happen on a fairly frequent basis.

I think the reason it got so much media attention because she was "missing" for so long, before her body was found.

But you're not wrong - a recent issue of Ms. magazine (yes, biased source, blah blah blah, I know) had an article talking about how recently one of the leading causes of death in pregnant women (or perhaps it was /the/ leading cause of death, I can't remember for sure, and the house is too wrecked for me to find the article easily right now) was murder, almost always committed by the father of the baby.

Anyway, short answer - yeah, unfortunately this kind of thing happens a lot more than any of us want to contemplate.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:33 am

The funny thing is, with me in law enforcement, I had no idea what this case was all about (other than hearing about the guy). I didn't even know what the crimes were until they were posted here. Frankly, I don't give two shits about it. Sure, it's a tragedy and yes, it was heinous, but I didn't know them, so I don't really feel bad about it.

Humanity right now is pretty much fucked. As a race of people, we need to start learning the error of our ways, or we'll soon go the way of the dinosaur. I for one believe that humanity is on the brink of either its next step in evolution, or its extinction.

NiggaJP,

I think you're probably right. If Scott and Laci had been black, impoverished and lived in Detroit, it would've been reported as another low profile blurb in the obits. It never ceases to amaze me how much the public cares about some "prominent" family when it hits the news. Yet when something goes bad in the ghetto or barrio, it's all "let the animals kill each other."

The longer I am in law enforcement, the more I realize how deeply rooted racism is in our culture. My police department is almost 100% white-bred honkey crackers. We have one black cadet and one half black/half white officer (and he's from the upper peninsula, which makes him whiter than me). We have lots of minorities apply, but they rarely get hired. Our upper administration is very racist (although they try to present a politically correct image). Our cadet brought a hispanic girl to our Christmas party. The chief and lieutenants basically glared at him and made him feel very uncomfortable the whole night.

Sometimes I wish that big asteroid was in our near future.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:54 am

Yeah, I wondered why this particular guy got so much coverage. I really did. I literally wondered what was so special about him and his family.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:55 am

I honestly didn't realize that such things happened on a regular basis. Yeesh, I hate humanity even more now.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:55 am

UncleJoseph wrote:Sometimes I wish that big asteroid was in our near future.

Can we wait until I'm done with what I wanna do here, first? I kinda like living.

Nigga JP · Post by **Nigga JP** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:00 am

Damn, I completely made a malapropism. I wish spellchecker could check for that. Callus is close enough to callous though.

Thanks for the info Thorn. I had never heard that before, but if it is true that is pretty horrible.

Dave Chapelle said something interesting about if Elian Gonzalez had been Haitian then he would have just been sent back out to sea. It's an exaggeration but I don't think we would have heard about him if he was Haitian.

BloodHound · Post by **BloodHound** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:25 am

i really dont give a shit about the peterson case, it doesnt phase me at all - but the elian thing has me confused - isnt there a standing rule that the coast gaurd follows that states anyone caught on their way over here from cuba, haiti, lets just say the carribean, gets sent back asap? wasnt elian caught by the coast gaurd? and if so, why was he allowed to leave the naval/cg base in the first place?

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:33 am

Nigga JP wrote:Thanks for the info Thorn. I had never heard that before, but if it is true that is pretty horrible.

I actually poked around a little now, to try to find the article, but I couldn't find the one from Ms. However, I started to recall more about the article, and remembered that it wasn't a national figure, but something smaller in scale, though murder was the leading cause of death in pregnant women, in whatever area it was. Anyway, so I did a search and found this: http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/ ... r_ctv.html

I haven't read the entire thing, but I read the first part and it does mirror some of the information that was in the Ms. article.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:26 am

MissTeja wrote:The link gives some background, but basically he was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife, and second-degree murder of his unborn son who she was pregnant with. If I remember correctly, when the bodies were recovered, it was quite gruesome.

This in not a comment against Teja or anything she just happened to be the one that mentioned this. First off I really have been trying to ignore this case but when you also watch US news you get your dosage of it. Since they apparently find one murder more news worthy then others. White and cute appears to do that to the news people. As JP said, if they had been black or hispanic I doubt it would have been the media circus it is.

I can get the murder of this wife, fine it was murder. But murdering your unborn child? How on earth did that come about?

Legal protection for the unborn? How about ovulation? Is that now murder if you don't get fertilized? Male masturbation is that mass genocide?

Sure I know in this case the pregnancy had gone on for a while but still, murder on the unborn. I wonder what is next.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:20 am

lorg wrote:
MissTeja wrote:The link gives some background, but basically he was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife, and second-degree murder of his unborn son who she was pregnant with. If I remember correctly, when the bodies were recovered, it was quite gruesome.
This in not a comment against Teja or anything she just happened to be the one that mentioned this. First off I really have been trying to ignore this case but when you also watch US news you get your dosage of it. Since they apparently find one murder more news worthy then others. White and cute appears to do that to the news people. As JP said, if they had been black or hispanic I doubt it would have been the media circus it is.

I can get the murder of this wife, fine it was murder. But murdering your unborn child? How on earth did that come about?

Legal protection for the unborn? How about ovulation? Is that now murder if you don't get fertilized? Male masturbation is that mass genocide?

Sure I know in this case the pregnancy had gone on for a while but still, murder on the unborn. I wonder what is next.

Politically its nice. Juristically its a sore point for me.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:03 am

The desire for adding the unborn child to the list of his crimes comes from a noble place. She was pregnant and expecting this child. This child was becoming a part of her family (this includes grief felt by her relatives who were expecting a new grandchild, nephew/niece, and so on). From having children I can tell you that as the months go by, that fetus is a person for you. You start wondering what they're gonna look like, who they'll resemble. You start coming up with a name. From having friends who've miscarried, I know that there is a grieving process for the lost baby. Hell, some folks put up mourning websites for the fetus. I think that's a bit much, but it's there grief to handle in their way. I sort of assume that all of this holds less true for undesired pregnancies.

But we've already done this discussion. Yeah, holding ovum and sperm as seperate living entities is a great hyperbolic response to this, if completely missing the point. A newly formed zygote has a 1/infinititron chance of survival anyway, so why give it living rights? This is all true. But it's also true that nothing is fundamentally different between a baby before and after it crowns (birth trauma not being a fundamental difference), or most likely a day or two before that. What about a day or two before that, or earlier? There's a line in there. We're just having trouble narrowing it down.

So yeah, people are almost more shocked by the killing of the potential life than the life of his wife. She at least chose to be with this man whom she apparently didn' know as well as she thought she did. So, I know you're above it all and rational, but let some of us be human.

As for the press scandal, it happens. It also happens that this case followed pretty closely on the Amber Alert summer, if I remember correctly. There was a couple of months where the major news outlets discovered the kidnapping problem in america. Any time an Amber alert was called in there would be national coverage. There were three teenagers gone missing and found, and one car chase where the cops got the guy before he'd found a quiet place to do whatever he was planning on doing. And it showed the power of rapid public response. And we all felt really good about the news. Then it seems like kidnapping disappeared. But at the tail end of all that, this guy comes out publicly saying that his wife has disappeared. People get all worried and worked up for her, and wait breathlessly to see if she's found. Then she turns up dead and suspicion turns to the husband. The news is feeding on the public's anger at having their emotions toyed with so that this guy could get out of being a father. This case got news coverage because he tried to use the news in his coverup.

But I do agree that equally heinous crimes happen all over without this media circus. They do stories that catch their eye, and crime happening among the rich is less freqeunt than crime happening among the poor. OJ would have gotten equal coverage if Nicole had been black, I think. The factor is that he had money and "should be above such things."

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:27 am

lorg wrote:Legal protection for the unborn? How about ovulation? Is that now murder if you don't get fertilized? Male masturbation is that mass genocide?

While I understand the thrust of your argument, these are poor examples; ovulation and ejaculation produce germ cells, or gametes. Until these cells combine in fertilization, there is no valid scientific or even moral argument that they are alive. The point only really becomes arguable after fertilization, whereupon two haploid cells combine to form new life, and whereupon god is said to place the soul in the body, according to some. [According to others, He apparently waits several months...for no apparent reason.]

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:59 am

Yes I do agree they were not exactlly brilliant examples, the point was a tad far fetched to say the least but it did convey my feeling.

I could say I understand about the whole having children thing, but I really can't since I don't have any. But sure I can say it is a safe assumption from looking at a few friends that have kids, they would most likely have been utterly crushed if something like this or similar had happened.

I'm not sure this is actually the old 'where does life begin question'. But something different. Legal protection for someone that is not even born yet, it is huge! The potential what-if:s are innumerable, ok probably not but there are alot of them such as: when will the protection kick in, which month? day? hour? reached a certain number of cell divisions? Will the "fetus" have legal responsibilities? You can't just get protection from the law without also being responsible to the law can you?

If they become a person should you also be able to do things in the childs name before they are born? Should they be counted in a census? Current population is X + Y unborn people?

I'm not certain but arn't there laws if a pregnant mother missbehaves and it harms the fetus? Could the (un)born child then sue the parents for a horrible time in the vomb?

About Willys OJ comment, you are right there no matter what colour Nicole had been it would have been big time news simple cause OJ is/was a celeb, biiig football hero (crappy actor) etc.

3278; Since the population is increasing so rapidly (that billion chinese guys and so on) perhaps there is a backlog, after all the lord rests one day a week and only work the other 6 and he is the only one that can do the soul insertion. He can't outsource. So perhaps some have to wait a bit long.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:00 pm

lorg wrote: I can get the murder of this wife, fine it was murder. But murdering your unborn child? How on earth did that come about?

Legal protection for the unborn? How about ovulation? Is that now murder if you don't get fertilized? Male masturbation is that mass genocide?

Sure I know in this case the pregnancy had gone on for a while but still, murder on the unborn. I wonder what is next.

In this case the mom was around 9 months pregnant, a stage that I think we can all agree is an actual living baby. I don't have the time, but I believe she disappeared only a few days before giving birth, and I also believe it was mentioned that the baby was alive for a day or two after the mom was killed. That's why people got so worked up, he waited 9 months to kill her after finding out that she was preggers.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:07 pm

Reika wrote:In this case the mom was around 9 months pregnant, a stage that I think we can all agree is an actual living baby. I don't have the time, but I believe she disappeared only a few days before giving birth, and I also believe it was mentioned that the baby was alive for a day or two after the mom was killed. That's why people got so worked up, he waited 9 months to kill her after finding out that she was preggers.

If the baby was actually born and lived for a day or two why do they keep refering to it as the unborn child etc? Are they sure or not, if born then murder, not born well then not so much as far as I am concerned.

Concidering that we now with modern medicin and science can pretty much save "half finished" (or there about) babies should we apply the same to all of them?

If we do and something happends after that leading the the death of the unborn (one way or another) should the mother/father then be investigated for possible murder?

I'm not in any way disputing that he is a giant jackass and a murder so that is not my issue. He did the crime and now he has to take the punishment handed down.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:04 pm

Reika wrote:In this case the mom was around 9 months pregnant, a stage that I think we can all agree is an actual living baby.

No, we can't. That's the point I think lorg is trying to make. This also has the potential to open up doctors and women choosing abortion to murder and conspiracy charges.

MojoPin · Post by **MojoPin** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:14 pm

lorg wrote:If the baby was actually born and lived for a day or two why do they keep refering to it as the unborn child etc? Are they sure or not, if born then murder, not born well then not so much as far as I am concerned.

I do think you need to draw a line between a group of complex cells and a potential person, but THIS is waaaaay beyond that line.
Let's put it that way. What if he hadn't kill her but "only" kicked her hard enough to kill the unborn child without seriously damaging her. Don't you think he should be prosecuted for killing the baby, unborn or not? It was mostly viable at that point, her mother wanted it, there is really no reason not to consider it a person.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:12 pm

Nigga JP wrote:Dave Chapelle said something interesting about if Elian Gonzalez had been Haitian then he would have just been sent back out to sea. It's an exaggeration but I don't think we would have heard about him if he was Haitian.

Probably true, but less because of the fact that he'd be black and more because there isn't a powerful Hatian lobby in Miami.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:09 pm

No, we can't. That's the point I think lorg is trying to make. This also has the potential to open up doctors and women choosing abortion to murder and conspiracy charges.

Which has a very easy legal solution, in my opinion. Simply make any laws like this apply to the pregnant woman instead of what's growing inside of her. That way, the law and all of its implied rights are only about something that everyone can agree is a human being.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:04 am

I'd generally be in favour of having it be called murder after the time limit for an abortion has passed but a lesser charge before that. That's my gut reaction without considering it to great extents yet.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 am

In Michigan, his charges would be 1st Degree Murder (wife) and Manslaughter (child).

The manslaughter charge only covers an unborn quick (viable) fetus if an injury to the mother results in the death of the fetus.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:12 am

lorg wrote:Legal protection for someone that is not even born yet, it is huge! The potential what-if:s are innumerable, ok probably not but there are alot of them such as: when will the protection kick in, which month? day? hour? reached a certain number of cell divisions? Will the "fetus" have legal responsibilities?

Absolutely! And I think that's /exactly/ what a lot of people are trying to do with this case: stretch the legal protection for a foetus back just a few more days. And then a few more, and a few more, until they have a set of laws that follows their [dumb-ass] morality. I mean, a case like this is a pro-life playground!

Ghotty · Post by **Ghotty** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:36 am

Hm. That's shitty. Underhanded way of doing that.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:51 am

MojoPin wrote:I do think you need to draw a line between a group of complex cells and a potential person, but THIS is waaaaay beyond that line.

Granted. But then it becomes the question of when a person is a person and not a cluster of cells and that is not the core issue here. As I see it it is about granting legal protection for unborn babies.

Let's put it that way. What if he hadn't kill her but "only" kicked her hard enough to kill the unborn child without seriously damaging her. Don't you think he should be prosecuted for killing the baby, unborn or not? It was mostly viable at that point, her mother wanted it, there is really no reason not to consider it a person.

First up you can't get kicked repeatedly in the stomach without taking injury or just injuring the "potential baby". But lets continue down this line, what if the attacker didn't know she was pregnant, what if he just thought he was kicking a fat girl?

But to go back to your example, murder ... mmm ... not so sure. I'd go with manslaughter at most as UncleJoseph suggested. Murder is for the living (and born) deprived of life not unborn babies, atleast as far as I am concerned.

Ghotty wrote:Hm. That's shitty. Underhanded way of doing that.

No doubt about that, but as 3278 says I don't for a moment think that that ain't what they want to do with the case. They will use this victory so to speak to further their agenda of "when life begins" and demand equal protection under the law for fetuses as for the living.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:10 pm

lorg wrote:
MojoPin wrote:I do think you need to draw a line between a group of complex cells and a potential person, but THIS is waaaaay beyond that line.
Granted. But then it becomes the question of when a person is a person and not a cluster of cells and that is not the core issue here. As I see it it is about granting legal protection for unborn babies.

So, um, there shouldn't be protection for unborn babies? A nine month fetus with a name, a bedroom, a family who loves it, a heartbeat, with brain function indistinguishable from a neonate's, isn't valuable and shouldn't be protected under our laws?

lorg wrote:
Let's put it that way. What if he hadn't kill her but "only" kicked her hard enough to kill the unborn child without seriously damaging her. Don't you think he should be prosecuted for killing the baby, unborn or not? It was mostly viable at that point, her mother wanted it, there is really no reason not to consider it a person.
First up you can't get kicked repeatedly in the stomach without taking injury or just injuring the "potential baby".

Yes you can.

lorg wrote:But lets continue down this line, what if the attacker didn't know she was pregnant, what if he just thought he was kicking a fat girl?

It really doesn't matter. If he thought he was just going to beat someone up a bit, and kills them, that's murder. If he thought he was just going to rob a bank, and someone gets killed, that's murder. When you kill someone while committing a felony, you're considered to have killed them intentionally under the law.

lorg wrote:But to go back to your example, murder ... mmm ... not so sure. I'd go with manslaughter at most as UncleJoseph suggested. Murder is for the living (and born) deprived of life not unborn babies, atleast as far as I am concerned.

I wouldn't go with manslaughter. Murder is more apporopriate. Murder is intentional and unlawful killing with malice and premeditation. If someone intentionally plans and kills a viable, wanted fetus that would otherwise have come to term, he has committed a murder. Because we're talking about murder, it's not really about legl protection for fetuses in general. It's about the crime that the person commits. When you intend to criminally end a life, when you plan it with malice, and you succeed, then it is appropriate to find you guilty of murder, whether your victim was a healthy adult human, a comatose human, a defective human, or an unborn human.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:51 pm

The problem with the manslaughter charge is that it only covers the incidental death of the fetus, when the intent was to assault the mother. To out and out intentionally cause the death of the fetus (regardless of the injury to the mother) is not covered by law. At least in Michigan.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:43 pm

The problem with the manslaughter charge is that it only covers the incidental death of the fetus, when the intent was to assault the mother. To out and out intentionally cause the death of the fetus (regardless of the injury to the mother) is not covered by law. At least in Michigan.

Should be felony murder, shouldn't it? If I'm intending to commit assault and I incidentally kill a bystander, I've killed in the commission of a felony, thus murder.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:59 pm

Ghotty wrote:Hm. That's shitty. Underhanded way of doing that.

I expect no better from the religious types.

Ghotty · Post by **Ghotty** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:26 pm

I'm a religious type, but my religious convictions do not say anything about forcing them upon other people.

But I know the type. They make me ashamed of what I am.

UncleJoseph · Post by **UncleJoseph** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:21 pm

I agree that it should be felony murder, but the law spells it out:

Michigan Penal Code:

"750.322 Manslaughter; wilful killing of an unborn quick child.

...The wilful killing of an unborn quick child by injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother, shall be deemed manslaughter."

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:40 pm

Is California Codified Penal Code similar to Michigans in this repsect?

As a man I am pro Death. As a citizen I am pro Death Penalty. As a father people who kill kids, even unborn ones need to be killed. As a prison guard I'd love to see how long this guy lasts in GP before they lock him up for protection. Is he the worst type of killer I've seen.

Not even close.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:01 pm

I doubt he'll be put in GP. More than likely he'll be put in a block that's separated from GP, specifically for Death row inmates.

I don't think he should have been put on Death row. He should have gotten life without parole, THEN get thrown in GP. He'd be puckering in NO TIME.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:35 pm

From California's Penal Code.

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice forethought.

Oh, but it gets better.

(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:
*snip*
(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.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:39 pm

Gunny wrote:I doubt he'll be put in GP. More than likely he'll be put in a block that's separated from GP, specifically for Death row inmates.

True, although even that can be dangerous. I don't know what California's prison system is like in this area, but in Michigan they can not lock you up with out a reason (threats made agaisnt you) or your request.

Artemis Frog · Post by **Artemis Frog** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:17 am

Wounded Ronin wrote:
Ghotty wrote:Hm. That's shitty. Underhanded way of doing that.
I expect no better from the religious types.

Ghotty wrote:I'm a religious type, but my religious convictions do not say anything about forcing them upon other people.

But I know the type. They make me ashamed of what I am.

There's more than enough of forcing morality on others from both sides of the abortion issue. Currently, there are states in this union where a privately funded doctor or hospital is not allowed to refuse an elective abortion to a patient, if it is not medically unsafe.

Do you follow that? If you want to practice OB/GYN medicine in these states, then you also MUST perform abortions if they are requested of you, regardless of your personal beliefs. This is to allow "equal access" to abortions. Whose morality is being forced on whom in this case? It goes both ways.

Artemis Frog · Post by **Artemis Frog** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:20 am

BTW--I don't have the data in front of me, but I believe it is five states (not California, surprisingly), and one of them was a deep south state, which caught me off guard.

But this is the cutting edge of the pro-choice movement. Removing parents from the decision making process in abortions for minors and removing provider choice are the two big issues.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:05 am

Marius wrote:
lorg wrote:
Let's put it that way. What if he hadn't kill her but "only" kicked her hard enough to kill the unborn child without seriously damaging her. Don't you think he should be prosecuted for killing the baby, unborn or not? It was mostly viable at that point, her mother wanted it, there is really no reason not to consider it a person.
First up you can't get kicked repeatedly in the stomach without taking injury or just injuring the "potential baby".
Yes you can.

What are you, some sort of doctor? Oh, wait...

I'm willing to use the abortion line on both sides. If it's during the abortion-allowed period, It's not manslaughter or murder, though it certainly could be used to increase charges or specifically alter the minimum (e.g. +5 years w/ no-parole minimum) if the loss was undesired. After that point, it becomes murder or manslaughter as appropriate for the state's laws.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:20 am

Marius wrote:So, um, there shouldn't be protection for unborn babies? A nine month fetus with a name, a bedroom, a family who loves it, a heartbeat, with brain function indistinguishable from a neonate's, isn't valuable and shouldn't be protected under our laws?

Partially correct, I don't think they deserve the same level of protection as the living does. Just as we don't grant the same level of protection to the once that are dead, I don't think we should grant it to the once that are not yet alive.

A line has to be drawn somewhere, if one says 9 month old fetuses are to count as the living then you might have 8 month old once that are nearly as "good" and then you have 7 months etc etc, a line has to be drawn somewhere, there is always someone or something that is going to be stuck on the "wrong" side. I draw the line at birth, in my book that is when life begins.

Marius wrote:Yes you can.

So you are ok with me hitting you a dozen times or so in the stomach and you are sure it won't result in any form of injury? Superman are you out there?

Marius wrote:I wouldn't go with manslaughter. Murder is more apporopriate. Murder is intentional and unlawful killing with malice and premeditation. If someone intentionally plans and kills a viable, wanted fetus that would otherwise have come to term, he has committed a murder. Because we're talking about murder, it's not really about legl protection for fetuses in general. It's about the crime that the person commits. When you intend to criminally end a life, when you plan it with malice, and you succeed, then it is appropriate to find you guilty of murder, whether your victim was a healthy adult human, a comatose human, a defective human, or an unborn human.

So if one just puts the legality in question you just basically described an abortion, the premeditated ending of a potential life. Hench abortion on the unborn is murder. Which is just the case the loony (from my point of view) pro-lifers will make.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:46 am

lorg: I think Marius's point is not that you or your carried foetus can't be hurt by being hit repeatedly in the stomach, but that it's not an inevitability.

Artemis Frog · Post by **Artemis Frog** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:20 pm

lorg wrote:Partially correct, I don't think they deserve the same level of protection as the living does. Just as we don't grant the same level of protection to the once that are dead, I don't think we should grant it to the once that are not yet alive.

There is no one arguing that the fetus is not alive. It is quite clearly alive--trust me, there is a huge difference between a living fetus in your wife's womb and a dead one. You can't make any arguments on the fetus's status based on a premise that it is not alive. That is false.

If you would like to argue that it is not a person, then start making that case, and then you have a debate. But to say it is not alive is a lie.