Peterson verdict - Double standard?

by chappy 23 Replies latest social current

  • BrendaCloutier

    The "unborn" baby, 8 months in womb was found outside of Laci's womb. Forensics believe that her death forced the babies birth, then the babe drowned. This would be murder.

    I'm glad he's been found guilty. Now I hope the jury does the right thing and off him, too. Yes, I believe in the death penalty.



  • TD

    There is certainly a bit of an idealogical contradiction with abortion and fetal homicide laws, (IMHO) but I honestly don't believe this applies to the Peterson case at all.

    In the U.S. a woman's right to choose is predicated upon the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade. (More specifically, the central holding of Roe vs. Wade as modified by Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.)

    Although Roe vs. Wade affirmed that the word "person" as it is used in the 14th ammendment did not apply to the unborn, it would be a mistake to assume that this catagorically reduces the status of the fetus to that of a body part that may be removed by elective surgery at the whim of the patient. (For those who don't know, the 14th ammendment, (for purposes of this discussion) defines citizens of the U.S.)

    The state has a vested interest in both preserving the heath of a pregnant woman and in protecting fetal life. Under Roe vs. Wade, the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months while the state's interest in fetal life only becomes compelling at "viability"--six months under Roe vs. Wade. (Under Planned Parenthood vs. Casey the viability line will be allowed to "float.")

    What this meant in practical terms is the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester and the state may regulate abortion during the second three months only in cases where protection of the woman's health is an issue. However the state may regulate or ban abortion entirely to protect fetal life post viability ---during the third trimester. Therefore while a third trimester fetus may be viewed as a "non-person" in the sense that it cannot be viewed as a citizen of the U.S., with all the rights and protections thereof, it is certainly not a "non-entity" in the sense that it is not alive and not human.

    I think this is the key to Chappy's original question. "Non person" does not mean "Non human."

    Forty states and the District of Columbia currently have laws banning most post-viability abortions. This includes California, the state where the crime took place. Laci's child was third trimester and the state therefore had and has a compelling interest in protecting such life without contradiction.

  • wednesday
    It was just an analogy . How about this one: A man wants to remove his penis (it happens all the time), because that's his choice. It is not the same as someone else choosing to remove another man's penis. Better?
    I believe abortion is killing a human life.

    Sorry, men do not remove their penis wihthout a compelling reason, cancer some sort of horrible disease, or quite rarely, a sex change operation. In each case, no doc would just remove it just b/c the man decided he did not want it anymore.

    I understand what an analogy is, yours just did not fit.

    Sometimes people do kill others, and at times we call it justifed. I do not believe that barring a horrible defective disease or an illness or disease in the mother that would render her incapable of life, that killing a fetus is a choice. I believe it is murder.
    Killing a fetus is a choice.. I don't understand what you mean. Even if you think it's murder, it's still a choice. Once again, murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a human life. Abortion is legal, therefore not unlawful, therefore it's not murder

    perhaps i did not word it correclty. b/c the fetus is a human being, it is always killing it. I would view it as unlawful killing, murder, if there was not compelling reason to do it. just as they may decide to kill scott peterson, somone may decide it is in the best interest of the fetus or mother to kill the fetus.It is a sobering thing to do, justifed or not.

    we just do not agree, that is all. I do not believe in abortion without a strongly compelling reason, ie disease of such magnitude it would preclude normal life in either fetus or mother.

  • confusedjw

    Was: Yes I think that taking a life at times is justified. If a child was being attacked for example and there are more of course

    Simon said:

    If you are firing a gun at a pregnant woman then you deserve to fry.
    (this is going to go over like a fart in church) Simon, this is multiple times you have mentioned the death penalty. And I am surprised, that with your general views, that you support it. At least you have one thing in common with Bush, Texas and the ultra-conservatives in the US.

Share this