Laci Peterson case tied to Roe debate

Daily Reocrd/Drudge Report ^ | April 20, 2003 | Rob Jennings

[DCPatriot]

Once again too many Freepers get on the wrong side of an issue...others being Elian Gonzalez and Clinton bombing Bosnia.

We all have specially marked days called BIRTHDAYS. As Rush would say, "For all you in Rio Linde...", that is the day you are BORN! Not "...a few weeks from your birth...".

There is no freaking way this goober should be charged with two murders. And, I predict he won't be found guilty of killing his UNBORN child.

A tip for you you Anti-Abortionists. Get real.

I am as disgusted about this Laci Peterson Saga as the next law-abiding citizen. But if you think every time a pregnant woman dies (even in a automobile crash) that the person at fault should be convicted of a 2nd wrongful death, then you're all nuts...at least in terms of how much you want the Federal Government encroaching into your life.

You could be considered a trial lawyer's best fan, however.

[Conservative Me]

The two scenarios aren't equal. If the goal of the murder was to intentionally kill the unborn child, then YES it is murder, especially once the child has reached viability. If there was a car accident and the unborn was killed...MANSLAUGHTER.

[DCPatriot]

I cannot agree with you. When a young girl GIVES BIRTH..and her boyfriend throw that BABY into the trash dumpster in a plastic bag, the penalty is not jail. It is mandatory counseling (sp?)

To me, that is a more deliberate crime than killing your pregnant spouse. The "murder" is directed at the mother, and because she is a host to a FETUS, the fetus dies.

I hope you don't think I just trying to give you a hard time, Conservative Me.

[jimt]

I am a woman, but these women are driving my crazy!

The opinions of these communist lesbians who hypocritically defended the rapist traitor are meaningless. They are obviously not "women's rights advocates" regardless of how they style themselves. They advocate murder of children. They advocate homosexuality. They denigrate men. They denigrate women. They denigrate traditional families.

In short, they're hypocritical scum. Who cares what they think ?

[Conservative Me]

I don't think you are trying to give me a hard time at all. I have talked to many who share you view in a different forum. I just happen to disagree.

[WaveThatFlag]

From the beginning the media refered to Connor by name and called him Laci and Scott's baby. We all know that the crime committed here was somehow worse than a guy killing his wife. Why can't NOW admit it and see it for what it is: A tiny setback in their jihad against the unborn.

[Conservative Me]

One more thing...

I think you have to question why they are killing their spouse and if the fetus is also a target. That would decide whether the prosecution should consider the death of the fetus as first degree murder.

When we are talking about babies having babies, although I disagree with a slap on the wrist as punishment, I understand how emotions would have been the deciding factor on dumping the baby. I am thankful that some states have adopted a policy that allows women to drop the babies off at hospitals and other locations instead of killing the babies.

I should also tell you that I do not consider abortion as first degree murder for most women who get them. I do, however consider it such for the doctor performing the abortion.

[wasp69]

Anything to hang on to power. Grandstanding on the bodies of the unborn is nothing new to these people.

[Caipirabob]

Thanks! Soon I'll be ready for my "OReilly" moment - lol!

[rebel85]

Do you feel the mother should not be punished at all, only the abortionist?? Just looking for clarification.
The mother makes a conscience decision to have her baby killed, therefore, premeditation. She acquires an accomplice to actually do the murder. I think she is a co conspirator and probably should be charged with 1st degree, if we go by what is right
The problem is that there is a divide that is becoming greater between what is lawful, what is justice, and what if Right. No matter what the law says some things are right and somethings are wrong. The law changes to fit society's norms at that time; it is not always based on a code of moral right and wrong.

[RooRoobird14]

There is nothing too grotesque, macabre, tacky, trashy, insensitive, or horrific that the NOW hags won't do to protect their so called "sacred right" to slaugter unborn babies en masse.

[Conservative Me]

I do believe the mother to be at fault, but not premeditation because of the amount of emotion involved in most cases. Seeking an abortion can't be a decision taken lightly. Second degree maybe, but not first degree for first timers. First degree for multiple abortions.

This, of course all pertains to consentual sex. Rape is a whole other ball game, IMHO.

[Marysecretary]

The problem with these NARAL and NOW types is that the choice they want the woman to make is to murder their child in the womb. They're pro-death, not pro-life.

[rebel85]

I would have to disagree that once we start splitting hairs based on emotion or rape or whatever the cause we are adding our judgement. Moral right and wrong is static despite the situation. If killing is right for any sub-reason, then it "can" be right for any other reason, based on a person's particular perspective.

Once a society becomes tolerant of an action for any reason, that tolerance will swell, and the action likely will become the norm

We may have to agree to disagree; but the death of an innocent child or "fetus" is wrong no matter the reason the baby was conceived. Rape does not make the child any less innocent. We do not have the omniscience to know the purpose of that child.

[Conservative Me]

I used to feel the same way until I heard stories of families who had to deal with the loss of their daughter and grandchild due to the deep depression that the daughter went through from the rape (suicide). One story I was told included the girl getting counseling, which did not help. At some point we have to question if it is possible to perserve the life of one instead of losing both. That is why I feel the way I do about rape.

I agree, however, that it would be impossible to have rape as an acceptable reason for abortion because of the lack of reporting by women and, therefore, the lack of proof of rape at the time an abortion is sought. Also to be taken in account is desperation that would cause women to lie in order to get an abortion.

There is no easy answer. On the up side, it seems that abortions have been decreasing. Let's hope the decline continues.

[Conservative Me]

I stated emotion because it then become a crime of passion, not premeditated murder. That's not splitting hairs at all.

[SarahW]

Spontaneous abortions aren't murder, but I know what you meant.

Women have a right to protect themselves from pregnancies that might severely injure or kill them.

[TxBec]

I don't like that term "spontaneous abortion".. I know what it means, but it really bothered me the first time I heard it..just call it a miscarriage.

[SarahW]

No, call it a spontaneous abortion. That's the medical term, abbreviated SAb. Miscarriage is a laymans term only.

In fact, if "abortion" without any modifiers appears in a woman's medical records (not her self-given medical history)
it generally means spontaneous abortion. The word "abortion" is a medical euphemism for the failure of *any* pregnancy before 22 weeks.

If you show signs of aborting (spontaneously), its called a "threatened abortion." If the fetus dies before the third trimester, but remains in the womb, that's called a "missed abortion" If the products of conception including the chorion is completely expelled, its a complete abortion, if not, an incomplete abortion. . . etc. etc.


We are grown-ups here and can use the correct medical terminology. Squeamishness about proper medical terms does nothing to aid the cause. It only tends to paint the pro-life view as medically naive, IMHO.