N.O.W. and Scott Peterson

[Dave_7]

Has the National Organization of Women lost it's public relations mind?

N.O.W. looks for single murder charge, rather than double. (http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm)


Pick your battles. They could have (and should have for their own sake) stayed completely away from the dead man (Scott Peterson).

It's like they're LOOKING for egg on their face.

Do they not realize that whatever their intentions... they will be associated with the defense of a suspected murderer? Rather than condemning the actions of the murderer, they chose their stated position.

It's the, "Our Cause is More Important than Common Sense" attitude that's like a cheese-grater on me. They are off in their own little world. Ask Laci's parents what they think of N.O.W.'s outspoken position.




Dave.

[Cantacuzene]

That is ridiculous. There is a difference between being pro-choice and forcing your belief on people like a jerk. Same for the other side too.

[gear02]

Murf...this is dumb. This is what I call a Hootie, or a Martha, either it's despicable and totally retarded.

[sbp]

Always knew these publicity hound radicals were a bunch of nuts, but this :2far:

[eSDee]

First of all I think he should be charged with double murder. That said, I don't think this is unusual at all. The only leg that pro choicers have to stand on is that a fetus is not yet a human being until it is born. If it were considered a human being before being born, the fetus would be entitled to the same human rights as anyone else. If the prosecution in this case gets the double murder conviction, abortion could be considered murder as well.

I think what NOW is saying is nothing new. If you are disgusted by it it is probably because you are pro- life and not pro- choice. This just looks at a different angle of the debate, but it something we have been arguing in this country even before Roe vs. Wade.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
forcing your belief on people like a jerk.

i agree

i fergot the ;)

[Momma Kitty]

I am not anti-abortion, but I do believe that at some point of a pregnancy it goes from a fetus to a baby, and I think he should be tried for double-murder. Just my 2 cents...

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco
First of all I think he should be charged with double murder. That said, I don't think this is unusual at all. The only leg that pro choicers have to stand on is that a fetus is not yet a human being until it is born. If it were considered a human being before being born, the fetus would be entitled to the same human rights as anyone else. If the prosecution in this case gets the double murder conviction, abortion could be considered murder as well.

I think what NOW is saying is nothing new. If you are disgusted by it it is probably because you are pro- life and not pro- choice. This just looks at a different angle of the debate, but it something we have been arguing in this country even before Roe vs. Wade.

No, the argument is when the fetus becomes viable, not when it's human. However, many states have laws that state if the woman was planning to keep the child, even in a 1st term pregnancy, then it's murder. I don't have a problem with that. Just because a woman has a right to choose doesn't mean that it's ok for someone else to get away with murder.

I hate radicals that can't hold more than 1 thought in there head at a time.

[nickel]

yep, at 8 months in the uterus that child was viable outside the uterus. can you imagine someone reaching up inside a woman and chopping a baby out to kill it at that late stage? *shudder*
the murderer of Lacey Peterson killed two people.

[faither]

Originally posted by nickelback
can you imagine someone reaching up inside a woman and chopping a baby out to kill it at that late stage? *shudder*

It's called a third-trimester partial-birth abortion. They're rarely done and generally only to save the life of the mother or because of severe or fatal anomalies in the baby.

I agree that once it's viable, it's double murder.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by LPMiller

I hate radicals that can't hold more than 1 thought in there head at a time.

How about conservos who can't do the same, like those who can't understand that anti- war doesn't mean anti- soldier? Do you hate them as well? Or are you one of them?

[chadlnc]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


How about conservos who can't do the same, like those who can't understand that anti- war doesn't mean anti- soldier? Do you hate them as well? Or are you one of them?

I think when he says radicals he means either liberal or conservative.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


How about conservos who can't do the same, like those who can't understand that anti- war doesn't mean anti- soldier? Do you hate them as well? Or are you one of them?

Any particular reason you are picking a fight?

I hate any one that leans too far left or right, because they give up their ability to think and replace it with a mantra of black and white that is supposed to cover all situations, yet rarely does.

[bachviet]

Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


How about conservos who can't do the same, like those who can't understand that anti- war doesn't mean anti- soldier? Do you hate them as well? Or are you one of them?
Not when protesters calling US soldiers: "Baby killers". :rolleyes:

Anyway I have to agree that he should be charged and hopefully convicted with the doulbe murders.

[Grimm]

While I understand NOW's position and their desire to prevent any incursion on the pro-choice laws, I don't see how this actualy affects them. It is basicaly a 2nd assault on the mother resulting in a loss of life.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Grimm
While I understand NOW's position and their desire to prevent any incursion on the pro-choice laws, I don't see how this actualy affects them. It is basicaly a 2nd assault on the mother resulting in a loss of life. It could be argued (and will be eventually, I'm sure) by conservative lawyers that this sets a precedent that since killing an unborn child by killing the mother counts as a separate murder, killing any unborn child by any means should be tantamount to murder, and tried appropriately. This would outlaw all abortion. I completely understand the pro-choice lobby's opinion on this. Both sides of the abortion fight take a mile anywhere they see an legal inch, so its no wonder that neither side is going to give an inch if they can prevent it.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by LPMiller


Any particular reason you are picking a fight?

I hate any one that leans too far left or right, because they give up their ability to think and replace it with a mantra of black and white that is supposed to cover all situations, yet rarely does.

Not trying to pick a fight, just making sure you practice what you preach. I understand your stance now so if I upset you I apologize.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by zenbooty
It could be argued (and will be eventually, I'm sure) by conservative lawyers that this sets a precedent that since killing an unborn child by killing the mother counts as a separate murder, killing any unborn child by any means should be tantamount to murder, and tried appropriately. This would outlaw all abortion. I completely understand the pro-choice lobby's opinion on this. Both sides of the abortion fight take a mile anywhere they see an legal inch, so its no wonder that neither side is going to give an inch if they can prevent it.

This was my point orginally although zen said it much better.

[mcs328]

I think he should be tried for double murder if he's guilty. I do see NOW's point tho..or I think I do. If he gets double murder then you can use this case to support the cause of abortion at that stage is murder. If you extrapolate that reasonsing far enough or a little more you can say abortion is murder regardless. Someone will take this case, use the inch to get a mile to support the belief abortion is murder. The legal ramifications goes beyond just this guy and the death(s) of his wife and the baby. The ripple might turn to a tidal wave down the road of Roe v. Wade based on how he's being tried and the amount of attention it gets if they examine for an extended amount of time if he is guilty of a second death based on whether you can consider the baby born or unborn.

[mcs328]

Doh...took to long to post. Zen and I got the same point and analogy too. Although he summed it up better than I did.

[faither]

I understand the statute that's being used to charge him with two murders has been on the books in CA for about 30 years. Not being too familiar with CA penal history, does anyone else know if anyone's been convicted with the murder of a viable fetus/undelivered baby????

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by faither
I understand the statute that's being used to charge him with two murders has been on the books in CA for about 30 years. Not being too familiar with CA penal history, does anyone else know if anyone's been convicted with the murder of a viable fetus/undelivered baby????

Happens all the time - I believe there is even a specific law on the books about it here in Minnesota. This is why NOW's stance is so silly - this is not the first time it has ever come up before. Unlike people apparently, the law can actually be made to make distinctions.

[mcs328]

Originally posted by LPMiller


Happens all the time - I believe there is even a specific law on the books about it here in Minnesota. This is why NOW's stance is so silly - this is not the first time it has ever come up before. Unlike people apparently, the law can actually be made to make distinctions.

I think this case just has more publicity than all the other cases. I haven't heard of any other cases besides this one so this would be a good setup if I was pro-life and want to find a specific case to support my stance if I were pro-life.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by LPMiller
Unlike people apparently, the law can actually be made to make distinctions. Yes, but the law can also be used to blur distinctions and confuse issues. Remember, "If the glove don't fit you must acquit?"

[nickel]

oh no, not an OJ -out looking for the real killers- Simpson reference.

it didn't fit because it shrank. one of the properties tied to something that is blood soaked and then dried.
either that OR OJ is a good actor? nah, i saw his movies. baaaaaad

[Nija]

First off, the dickhead isn't guilty until proven so in a court of law. I do think he could have cared less about his wife and soon-to-be child going missing, he was almost robot. Hence the reason for the insult. Most people when they lose someone that they are supposed to love you would get a hint of emotion, at least some time within the few months before her body turned up. He didn't. :shrug:

To me, a fetus lives inside of the mother, the ONLY person who should have say of the fetus IS the mother. Now in the case the mother was killed, there was only one person killed. One count of murder. Had two people been killed, then two counts of murder would be applicable, however the fetus is not a person.


originally posted by bachviet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by eSDeeLoco


How about conservos who can't do the same, like those who can't understand that anti- war doesn't mean anti- soldier? Do you hate them as well? Or are you one of them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not when protesters calling US soldiers: "Baby killers".

Anyway I have to agree that he should be charged and hopefully convicted with the doulbe murders.

:disa:
What do you call someone who kills a baby? A baby killer. I'm pretty sure at least one baby was killed, so the term applies, albeit extremely broadly, but still it does apply. I may not like it but when you start a way and any non-combatant gets hurt, the people starting and fighting the war can get labelled just about anything without a way to defend themseleves from the truth. One isolated incident maybe just that, but I know if one invading military person killed my child, I would damn well call them all child killers at the top of my lungs