by bluesapphire 28 Replies latest jw friends
NOW choose the wrong battle to open up their non-sensecal mouths. What idiots.... such a high profile case such as this and they chime in.
I agree with the double-murder charge. I live in California and can't believe that we have at least one law that protects the innocent... how refreshing.
This is about an asshole who killed his pregnant wife. Period. End of story.
What about the trial Freedom96?
I think people are getting way to emotional about this. Consider the next statement made by freedom96
This is about an asshole who killed his pregnant wife. Period. End of story.
While it may be good to express anger at Scott(since after all he is the main suspect), he still has a right to a trial by his peers. If we on the outside of this case are all up in arms about this just imagine people living near him that will be called decide his fate.. And on that note I certainly hope that the jury isn't lead by a bunch of emotional mothers like some of the people that have posted on this topic. This is a capital case. Leave emotions at the door. Period.
What has murder of this woman, and the loss of the child she was carrying, have to do with abortion?
Under any decent healthcare system, any abortion would have normally taken place place months ago. By the end of week 12 the baby, although perfectly formed, is still only 3.5 inches long from crow to rump and weighs only one ounce; abortion of 1st and early 2nd trimester pregnancies is demonstrably different to a late term abortion of a nerologically complex and developed unborn.
Late term abortions always get bandied around in these conversations and it sometimes gives the impression that such things are a) common and b) entered into lightly. I'll leave it for others to dig up the facts.
As to the arguement 'under certain legal codes if a person causes the death of an unborn it is murder but it is not murder if the mother aborts it', well, yes?
Do you imagine for a moment that women haven't been stopping pregnancies for millenia? Many animals can stop a pregnancy or hold a pregnancy until the time is right. The fact a woman needs some form of chemical or physical intervention to achieve the same ends doesn't mean it's unnatural to me, as it's been happening WELL BEFORE there were even such concepts as natural and unnatural.
It's clear to me there is a difference between a women doing what has been done for millenia and an act of violence. The only way that you can condemn the actions on the same terms is by bringing in some belief structure regarding what the point of conception is on some supernatural level; that's a personal decision/belief.
Obviously people are free to have personal beliefs; I have a personal belief that anyone who deloiberately harms a pregnant woman has so exceeded the bounds of humanity that they have everything that is coming to them.
(subject to trial, obviously)
This guy went boating that day and had a receipt? Where did the body show up? Not to far from he went, so-called fishing!
What chance do you think he has with a 'public defender' representing him? This guy might as well shut the lights out!
I still give him the benefit of the doubt, but the lights are getting dimmer. Assuming he did it, it was cold and calculating. This is heartless especially when he made such a public spectacle of himself.
Guest 77
Guest 77
using these murders as a way to make a point is heartless
That's exactly my position. Murder cannot be equated with abortion. I'm fine with abortion, as long as it's not partial birth, which only accounts for 4% of abortions.
NOW is out of line and disgusting for doing this, and so is that stupid bastard who's praying/damning people to hell with his rhetoric.
ash
As to the arguement 'under certain legal codes if a person causes the death of an unborn it is murder but it is not murder if the mother aborts it', well, yes?
Here in Ohio they passed a law that says if you take an unborn baby from a woman, without her consent, it is murder.
Apparently, in the mid-90's this was becoming a popular way for men to get out of their responsibility when the woman refused an abortion. They would beat them in the bellies to make them abort. Many times the woman would not prosecute. (battered woman syndrome)
The key is *without her consent*. The prosecutor of the terrible Ohio case said they worded the law to get around abortion, because it (abortion is legal).
NOW is taking advantage of a terrible situation. They are hurting their cause with stance's like this.
Definitely a double homicide. The NOW doesn't have anything else to do but pitch fits about things...
Laci was denied the chance of giving birth to Connor and doting and nurturing this child. This is one the saddest stories I have heard in a long time. I feel bad for the Rocha family, the terrible loss of their daughter and their grandson. It makes me weep inside...
freedom96:
This is about an asshole who killed his pregnant wife. Period. End of story.
zucker:
While it may be good to express anger at Scott(since after all he is the main suspect), he still has a right to a trial by his peers. If we on the outside of this case are all up in arms about this just imagine people living near him that will be called decide his fate.. And on that note I certainly hope that the jury isn't lead by a bunch of emotional mothers like some of the people that have posted on this topic. This is a capital case. Leave emotions at the door. Period.
Although I completely disagree with NOW's stance at taking this opportunity to market their cause, I also believe in a trial by peers. The freedom that gives us the opportunity to voice our opinions, protects us in a court of law.
As exJWs we should all remember that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, things are not always as they seem. Yes, it may seem that Scott is guilty...but all we can do at this point is speculate. We DO NOT have all the details nor do we have all the facts. We DO NOT have the whole picture. I say let's quick taking the media's word at this and let the system do it's job.
Just my 2 cents...
Andi
