N.O.W. they have gone insane!

[SoylentGreen]

This weekend Laci Petersen, the woman who dissapeared last Christmas washed up on the shore of the lake her husband said he was fishing in when she vanished. Her unborn child (8 1/2) mo's along washed up also. The police have charged him with two counts of murder, one for her and one for the baby.

In California the law says that the killing of a fetus against the mother's will is a murder. The N.O.W. people are raising hell about this. THey don't want the fetus labeled a person since it goes against thier precious abortion stance. They seem to want to overlook that fact that a woman and her baby were murdered so that they can have another platform to display their politics.

If a man did not want to be a father, and stuck a knife into his wife/girfriend's belly and killed the fetus, these women would want us to belive there is no crime since it was not a person attacked!!?!??!?

They defended Jessica Yates for killing her children. So I guess children don't even become people once they are born. When does life start? Are you not a person until you start menstruating???

NOW is consitantly anti male, anti family, anti children, and even anti woman unless you are the type of woman they see fit. They are against stay at home moms. What happened to the woman's right to choose?

This group is yet again proving that they are more interested in the furthering of their political positions than protecting the rights of women.

I think it is shameful.

 

[Zebo]

NOW tried this about 10 years ago when some woman in Orange Country was tring to drive in the carpool lane with her ~8 month fetus. The woman won though.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

NOW tried this about 10 years ago when some woman in Orange Country was tring to drive in the carpool lane with her ~8 month fetus. The woman won though.

Was she killed in the carpool lane? If not, please explain what relevance your poppycock example has to the thread.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

NOW tried this about 10 years ago when some woman in Orange Country was tring to drive in the carpool lane with her ~8 month fetus. The woman won though.

Was she killed in the carpool lane? If not, please explain what relevance your poppycock example has to the thread.

dude you really are an idiot (from reading your posts) Carbonyl's example is very relevant in this case.
But I do agree with you on the idiocy of the N.O.W. people. But I don't recall anyone in the organization saying if a man stuck a knife in his pregnant gf/wife's belly and killed the fetus, that there would be no crime. But again, N.O.W. people are idiots.

 

[Smaug]

Ermmm... she wasn't killed, but she argued that since she was pregnant, she fits the 2 person criteria for the carpool lane.

 

[SoylentGreen]

The only relevance it has is that NOW's stance was of sheer idiocy regarding the carpool lane incident.
I don't think it's pertinent to my post, but I'll take the opinions where they come from.

 

[Electrode]

N.O.W. has always been insane, that's not exactly news...

As for this case, I think a previously uncomplicated 8.5 month old child should be considered a person, since if (gross description follows, look away) the mother, in the process of dying, recieved a lacertion to her abdomen deep enough to open the uterus, the child would probably have a very good chance of survival and a normal life if given care quickly. In other words, it's way past viable, it's done.

I'm about as pro-abortion as one can be, but this is a case where it's entirely justifiable to call the child a person.

 

[UnixFreak]

NOW is one one of those organizations like PETA, ACLU, and others who do really stupid things and say outrageous things to gain publicity, and eventually more members and money. I really believe thats the reasoning behind stupidity such as this.

I am pro-choice as well, however, I believe he should be charged with 2 murders as well, because at 8.5 months, its a person in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jesus, how obvious is it that NOW objected to the woman driving in the car pool lane claiming the fetus as the second person in the car. Exact same idea.

Personally I can't wait till the woman's taliban takes over this country and I get to stay home and do dishes and scrub floors where my testosterone won't kill all life on earth.

Isn't it obvious that women should rule?

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Exact same idea.

A person in the carpool lane is the exact same idea as charging the murderer with 1 or 2 counts of homicide.

I actually got a chuckle out of that one.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

NOW tried this about 10 years ago when some woman in Orange Country was tring to drive in the carpool lane with her ~8 month fetus. The woman won though.

Was she killed in the carpool lane? If not, please explain what relevance your poppycock example has to the thread.

OK I'll spell it out for you, and was traffic bad this morning, get cut off? Jeez


She was ticketed for driving alone in the carpool lane (you need two or more persons). She faught the ticket saying she did have two. NOW joined the prosecution in filing a friend of the court brief saying it was not a baby and they should convict her. Luckly she won.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

NOW tried this about 10 years ago when some woman in Orange Country was tring to drive in the carpool lane with her ~8 month fetus. The woman won though.

Was she killed in the carpool lane? If not, please explain what relevance your poppycock example has to the thread.

hahaha

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Just to toss a wrench in here When does a fetus become a human? I don't and won't defend anyone who murders a pregnant woman but then again you can't have it both ways. You see - there is a legal gray area that needs to be defined. Is it a fetus until it "exits" the womb? or is/was is always a human from the point of conception? The way I see it as long as abortion is legal in the US - the "fetus" is not considered a human until it exits, otherwise you'd have to charge women that have abortions with murder. Now I think a compromise would be that if a "fetus" passes X months then it can be considered a "human", where X is after the accepted timeframe for abortions. The problem is that there are no cases that have set a precidence on when a "fetus" is considered a "human". The fact that the woman wanted the child or not makes no difference in this or any other case.

The above may or may not reflect my own views

CkG

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Just to toss a wrench in here When does a fetus become a human? I don't and won't defend anyone who murders a pregnant woman but then again you can't have it both ways. You see - there is a legal gray area that needs to be defined. Is it a fetus until it "exits" the womb? or is/was is always a human from the point of conception? The way I see it as long as abortion is legal in the US - the "fetus" is not considered a human until it exits, otherwise you'd have to charge women that have abortions with murder. Now I think a compromise would be that if a "fetus" passes X months then it can be considered a "human", where X is after the accepted timeframe for abortions. The problem is that there are no cases that have set a precidence on when a "fetus" is considered a "human". The fact that the woman wanted the child or not makes no difference in this or any other case.

The above may or may not reflect my own views

CkG

Double standard. #106
Anytime during the pregnancy a woman decides it a fetus it is. Anytime during the pregnancy a woman decides it's a human it is. If the woman is killed it is always a human.

 

[RyanM]

Why hasn't anyone used the following argument:

If the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant, he could not have formed the requisite intent to kill the fetus, therefore it would be a single count of murder.

On the other hand, if he knew the woman was pregnant (as Mr. Peterson did), then his intent was to kill two people. The fetus may not have been an actual human yet, but his intent was to stop it from becoming one, therefore he is guilty of two counts of murder.

Intent is all that matters, and I see no reason to give the pro-lifers any more ammunition.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Why hasn't anyone used the following argument:

If the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant, he could not have formed the requisite intent to kill the fetus, therefore it would be a single count of murder.

On the other hand, if he knew the woman was pregnant (as Mr. Peterson did), then his intent was to kill two people. The fetus may not have been an actual human yet, but his intent was to stop it from becoming one, therefore he is guilty of two counts of murder.

Intent is all that matters, and I see no reason to give the pro-lifers any more ammunition.

That is the argument, thanks for stating it eloquently MachFive.
On the other hand, as you can see here, you have people thinking that the case of a woman driving in her car relates to whether a murder is a double count or not.
The only correlation I can see is that both women were pregnant, and whether it was one or two people. I call that quite a stretch for comparison and even had the displeasure of it being called exactly the same.

 

[Bulk Beef]

The only correlation I can see is that both women were pregnant, and whether it was one or two people.

Isn't that really the whole subject of your thread?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The point is Kiyup and MachFive - is that the gov't, by allowing abortion, has opened up a can of worms on when exactly a fetus becomes a human. The lady in the car-pool lane said that her baby was a human, when a pregnant woman is murdered people claim the fetus was a human but if the lady doesn't want her baby and gets an abortion -then it's called a fetus and therefore has no "human" rights.

We need to draw the line somewhere and then follow it. Like I said...If it were up to me to propose a compromise, then I'd say the time for a fetus to be called a human is just after the "deadline" for abortions. I'm not sure how late in a pregnancy an abortion can be performed but anything after that accepted "abortion window" , the fetus should be a "human" in legal terms.

CkG

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: sward666

The only correlation I can see is that both women were pregnant, and whether it was one or two people.

Isn't that really the whole subject of your thread?

No it is not, and you still say that after my response to mach?
I give up, absolutely.

 

[Format C:]

Can someone be charged with murdering another's spleen?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The point is Kiyup and MachFive - is that the gov't, by allowing abortion, has opened up a can of worms on when exactly a fetus becomes a human. The lady in the car-pool lane said that her baby was a human, when a pregnant woman is murdered people claim the fetus was a human but if the lady doesn't want her baby and gets an abortion -then it's called a fetus and therefore has no "human" rights.

We need to draw the line somewhere and then follow it. Like I said...If it were up to me to propose a compromise, then I'd say the time for a fetus to be called a human is just after the "deadline" for abortions. I'm not sure how late in a pregnancy an abortion can be performed but anything after that accepted "abortion window" , the fetus should be a "human" in legal terms.

CkG

Agreed but that just opens up a whole other can of worms. People will start arguing over what exactly an abortion is. I'm sure you can "abort" a baby even in the 9th month.

 

[LunarRay]

In this country ya gotta go by the rule of law.
If the law is that a fetus is not a human then legaly it ain't.
If it were, as most religious groups would want, then almost anything a woman does that MAY injur her un born human would be unlawfull.... The tax code would have to give an exemption to the unborn human. All sorts of things would occur that ought not.
The law in the Peterson case states that if a fetus could sustain outside the womb at the time it was terminated it is considered homocide of the fetus and I think should be. This could mean that from about 5 months gestation on the potential exists for similar prosecutions.
That raises the abortion issue as being homocide after a certain date of pregnancy...
So... since it is now illegal to smoke in public I think the creating of human life without a license should also be illegal... And being an accessory before the fact should be considered anti homocide and the guy stays home and watches TV and stuff for 10 to 20 years.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
The point is Kiyup and MachFive - is that the gov't, by allowing abortion, has opened up a can of worms on when exactly a fetus becomes a human. The lady in the car-pool lane said that her baby was a human, when a pregnant woman is murdered people claim the fetus was a human but if the lady doesn't want her baby and gets an abortion -then it's called a fetus and therefore has no "human" rights.

We need to draw the line somewhere and then follow it. Like I said...If it were up to me to propose a compromise, then I'd say the time for a fetus to be called a human is just after the "deadline" for abortions. I'm not sure how late in a pregnancy an abortion can be performed but anything after that accepted "abortion window" , the fetus should be a "human" in legal terms.

CkG

The woman in the car pool lane is most certainly a jackhole. How many seats are occupied? One? Guess what, you're not carpooling, bitch. Now shut the f*ck up and eat your peas.

The problem is not that the Supreme court has seen it right to give women the right to choose, the problem is people on both sides of the debate twisting situations to their advantage, regardless of whether or not fetal age and the abortion issue is even on topic. The woman in the carpool lane was probably a pro-life activist who purposely tried to get arrested so she could spread her views. She's no better than the rapid pro-choicers who are gonna try to twist this whole Lacy Peterson thing around.

I agree with the "abortion window" thing. I personally don't see 3rd term abortions as anything but a worst case scenario which should only be available on a case-by-case basis depending on mitigating factors. And it would certainly make legal matters simpler if there was a consensus on when a fetus is no longer just a fetus. I don't see such a consensus forming anytime soon, unfortunately.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MachFive
Why hasn't anyone used the following argument:

If the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant, he could not have formed the requisite intent to kill the fetus, therefore it would be a single count of murder.

On the other hand, if he knew the woman was pregnant (as Mr. Peterson did), then his intent was to kill two people. The fetus may not have been an actual human yet, but his intent was to stop it from becoming one, therefore he is guilty of two counts of murder.

Intent is all that matters, and I see no reason to give the pro-lifers any more ammunition.

You are giving the pro-lifers more ammo. Either terminating a pregnancy w/o the mothers consent is assault (and thus the fetus is not human), or its murder/manslaughter/negligent homocide, and the fetus is human. Either a fetus is part of a woman's body and has no rights, or its a human child and has rights. The mother's feelings about the fetus dont change what the fetus actually was/is.

The only way out of this quagmire is to set a time when the fetus becomes a child, and stick with it. Either it becomes a child at fetilization, at a certain time/developmental stage, or at birth. We need to pick one and stay with it

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: MachFive
Why hasn't anyone used the following argument:

If the killer didn't know the woman was pregnant, he could not have formed the requisite intent to kill the fetus, therefore it would be a single count of murder.

On the other hand, if he knew the woman was pregnant (as Mr. Peterson did), then his intent was to kill two people. The fetus may not have been an actual human yet, but his intent was to stop it from becoming one, therefore he is guilty of two counts of murder.

Intent is all that matters, and I see no reason to give the pro-lifers any more ammunition.

You are giving the pro-lifers more ammo. Either terminating a pregnancy w/o the mothers consent is assault (and thus the fetus is not human), or its murder/manslaughter/negligent homocide, and the fetus is human. Either a fetus is part of a woman's body and has no rights, or its a human child and has rights. The mother's feelings about the fetus dont change what the fetus actually was/is.

The only way out of this quagmire is to set a time when the fetus becomes a child, and stick with it. Either it becomes a child at fetilization, at a certain time/developmental stage, or at birth. We need to pick one and stay with it

No, see I'm not giving them more ammo. That argument relies not on the actual status of the fetus, but on the KILLER'S intent of what that fetus is/could be. Intent is in the mind of the killer, and it doesn't need to coincide with laws regarding fetus age or relating issues.

If he kills her and kills the fetus, and he knowingly does both, in his mind, he has committed two murders. Regardless of the fact that according to the law, the fetus may or may not have been considered murder.

It all goes back to the classic law school case of, "If you decide to shoot someone, but it turns out they're already dead, you can still be charged with intent to commit murder, since you formed the requesite state of mind for the crime."

Using that system, he had the requisite state of mind to have committed two murders, even if the State doesn't consider the murder of the fetus to be a murder.